|
Whoa! What do you have against hillbillies? :) Jokes aside, imagine if Annie in accounting has the ability to define her own malleable tools, on top of a solid/robust system for centrally managing data? (version, backup, secure via IAM, etc) Or will we really be stuck writing procedural code for the next 20, 30, 50 years? -- [1] Caveat: chief hillbilly of https://mintdata.com here, where we think you really can have your cake (create expressive tools) and eat it too (centrally control, manage, and version your data)
. |
Which, I mean, if the tooling you've made is Turing-complete (Excel, Unix) then you can certainly say that the person working on top of your system is "programming"; but they're not programming your system. They're not writing plugins that interface with it on the same terms that its components interface with one-another (as you would be if you e.g. wrote your own POSIX shell utilities in C); they're trapped "above" that abstraction, in a sandbox, one from which they can only access the narrow subset of the API surface that you explicitly chose to expose to them.
Let me put it this way: you can get pretty far using e.g. Postgres as a custom data platform, by defining custom functions and types. But at some point, you'll need to write a Postgres extension. There's a big difference between a system that makes it easy for someone who's not a professional programmer to work on top of it (PG functions/types) and a system that makes it easy for someone who's not a professional programmer to extend it (PG extensions.) I've not yet seen a constructive proof that the latter is even possible.